THE  HOMESTEAD 


BILL. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  M.  S.  WILKINSON,  OF  MINNESOTA. 


In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
3d  of  April,  1860,  the  homestead  proposition 
was  called  up,  and  was  discussed  as  in  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Whole.  There  were  two  bills 
under  consideration ;  the  one,  a  bill  reported 
from  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the 
other,  a  bill  substituted  for  it  by  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Public  Lands.  Mr.  Fitch,  of 
Indiana,  offered  the  following  proviso  as  an 
amendment  to  the  first  section  of  the  House 
bill: 

“  Provided ,  That  the  lands  hereby  granted 
4  shall  be  entered  or  located  in  alternate  quar- 

*  ter  sections ;  and  that  the  quarter  sections,  or 

*  parts  of  quarter  sections,  of  land  which  shall 
‘  remain  to  the  United  States,  and  not  subject 
4  to  entry  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  shall 
‘  not  be  sold  for  less  than  double  the  minimum 
4  price  of  the  public  lands  when  sold:  And 
4  provided,  further,  That  the  provisions  of  this 
4  act  shall  be  applicable  only  to  land  subject  to 
4  private  entry  at  the  date  of  its  passage.’’ 

Mr.  WILKINSON,  of  Minnesota,  replied,  as 
follows : 

Mr.  President  :  I  am  entirely  opposed  to  the 
amendment  just  offered  by  the  Senator  from 
Indiana,  [Mr.  Fitch.]  Should  it  be  adopted, 
it  would  have  a  serious  tendency  to  impair  the 
usefulness  of  this  measure.  But  it  is  only  a 
natural  and  necessary  deduction  from  one  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Senate  bill.  To  that  bill 
I  had  intended  to  speak ;  but  that  bill  and  the 
House  bill  are  both,  in  one  sense,  before  the 
Senate  ;  and  I  suppose  that  it  will  make  very 
little  difference  to  which  of  them  I  may  address 
my  remarks. 

The  measure  of  granting  free  homes  to  the 
actual  settlers  upon  the  public  lands  is  one  in 
which  I  have  long  felt  a  deep  interest.  I  have 
passed  many  years  of  my  life  among  the  hardy 
settlers  of  new  States  and  Territories,  and  I 
have  thus  had  frequent  opportunities  to  become 
familiar  with  the  practical  workings  of  our 
present  land  system,  both  in  its  application  to 
the  settler  and  to  the  Government.  I  have 
seen  large  swindling  speculations  attempted, 
and  in  some  instances  carried  out,  by  which 
whole  townships  were  secured  by  a  single  indi¬ 
vidual  or  company  under  the  pre  emption  law, 
aud  by  which  the  settler  was  seriously  oppressed 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Government  irretriev¬ 
ably  defrauded  on  the  other.  I  have  travelled 


I  for  miles  and  miles  over  the  rich  plains  of  my 
own  State,  where  every  inch  of  the  land  was 
entered  under  the  pre-emption  law,  and  when 
there  was  not  on  the  face  of  the  country  a  sin¬ 
gle  evidence  of  cultivation,  improvement,  or 
occupancy. 

Under  the  existing  practice,  the  spirit  of  land 
speculation  has  become  so  common  among  our 
people,  and  the  desire  for  the  acquisition  of 
large  quantities  of  land  so  strong,  that  but  lit¬ 
tle  attention  is  paid  to  the  salutary  and  neces¬ 
sary  safeguards  which  Congress  has  seen  fit  to 
throw  around  the  law.  The  present  system, 
designed  and  established  in  a  spirit  of  national 
justice,  has  entirely  failed  to  meet  the  end  of 
its  authors,  simply  because  the  foundation  on 
which  it  rests  is  laid  in  error.  The  Govern¬ 
ment  itself  turns  land  monopolist,  and  seeks  to 
replenish  its  Treasury  from  the  proceeds  of  a 
traffic  in  the  public  lands.  While  the  domain 
is  regarded  only  as  a  source  of  revenue,  no 
great  care  can  be  felt  for  the  faithful  execution 
of  the  law,  so  long  as  the  primary  object  of 
selling  the  lands  is  attained. 

The  faithful  observance  of  the  land  laws  hag 
become  the  exception,  and  their  violation  the 
rule.  Government  traffics  and  speculates  in 
the  public  lands,  and  why  should  not  the  people  ? 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  have  looked  anxiously 
for  a  change  in  some  shape ;  and  it  is  with  pecu¬ 
liar  gratification  that  I  see  that  change  proposed 
in  the  shape  of  a  homestead  bill. 

The  original  bill,  as  reported  to  the  Senate 
from  the  House  of  Representatives,  would  re¬ 
ceive  my  hearty  concurrence.  But  it  seems  to 
have  been  met  by  a  strong  opposition  in  this 
body.  Our  Committee  on  Public  Lands  report 
it  to  us  altered  in  manner  and  in  essence,  and 
it  has  now  been  compressed  into  the  form  of  a 
Senate  bill,  introduced  by  the  Senator  from 
Tennessee,  [Mr.  Johnson.]  This  bill,  while  it 
recognises  the  justice  of  the  general  principle, 
appears  to  me  to  lack  the  force  and  vitality  of 
a  practical  measure. 

This  I  say  with  all  deference  to  the  gentle¬ 
men  who  have  drawn  up  that  proposition  in  its 
present  form.  They  have  acted  upon  their  own 
convictions  of  propriety,  and  it  may  be  of  expe¬ 
diency  ;  but  I  must  repeat  that,  in  my  judgment 
at  least,  the  Senate  bill  does  not  reach  the  real 
merits  of  the  case ;  that  it  does  not  cover  the 
whole  ground,  and  that  it  is  loaded  down  with 


2 


provisions  and  restrictions  which  will  seriously 
tend  to  destroy  its  efficiency  and  usefulness  be¬ 
fore  the  country. 

Some  of  its  restrictions  are  illiberal,  when 
liberality  should  be  the  most  distinguishing 
feature  of  such  a  bill.  Some  of  its  provisions 
would  seek  to  create  a  distinction  between  per¬ 
sons  and  classes ;  when  the  real  purpose  of  such 
a  bill  should  be,  to  furnish  homes  for  all  of  our 
citizens,  present  and  prospective,  who  may  be 
willing  to  settle  upon  the  public  domain.  These 
objections  seem  to  me  so  obvious,  that  I  am 
extremely  desirous  that  the  Senate  should  agree 
to  the  House  bill,  or  to  such  amendments  as 
would  bring  us  back  to  that  original  proposi¬ 
tion.  At  all  events,  a  full  and  friendly  discus¬ 
sion  should  be  had  upon  the  merits  of  the  whole 
subject. 

I  am  told  that  the  framers  of  the  Senate  bill 
anticipated  serious  difficulties  ;  that  they  judged 
it  necessary  to  attempt  a  kind  of  compromise 
between  the  friends  and  the  opponents  of  the 
measure  ;  and  that  they  were  compelled  to  draft 
their  proposition  in  this  mauner,  so  as  to  render 
it  acceptable  to  all  parties.  I  must  confess, 
that  I,  for  one,  did  not  expect  any  considerable 
resistance  to  be  made.  The  measure  of  grant¬ 
ing  to  actual  settlers  upon  the  public 

lands  embraces  a  policy  so  wise,  so  just,  and  so 
humane,  that  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  why  it 
should  be  steadily  and  persistently  opposed  by 
any  leading  member  of  any  party.  Least  of  all 
did  I  suppose  that  its  defeat  would  be  attempted 
by  a  resort  to  parliamentary  legerdemain.  My 
surprise,  therefore,  was  natural  and  great,  when 
the  Senator  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Clino- 
max]  the  other  day  offered  the  following  amend¬ 
ment: 

“  Strike  out,  in  the  first  section,  the  words 
1  1  to  enter  one  quarter  section  of  vacant  and 
‘  unappropriated  public  lands,  or  a  quantity 
‘  equal  thereto,  to  be  located  in  a  body,  in  con- 
1  formity  with  the  legal  subdivisions  of  the 
‘  public  lands,  and  after  the  same  shall  have 
‘  been  surveyed/  and  insert,  in  lieu  thereof,  ‘  to 
<  have  issued  to  him  or  her,  by  the  Commis- 
1  sioner  of  Public  Lands,  a  warrant  for  one 
‘  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land,  to  be  located 
1  in  the  same  manner  as  that  under  which  the 
‘  bounty  land  warrants  heretofore  issued  have 
‘  been  located,  on  any  of  the  public  lands  of 
‘  the  United  States  subject  to  entry,  the  appli- 
‘  cant  being  required  to  make  proof,  in  support 
‘  of  his  claim,  in  such  manner  and  under  such 
1  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Sec- 
‘  retary  of  the  Interior;’  so  as  to  make  the  sec- 
‘  tion  read: 

“  That  any  person  who  is  the  head  of  a  fam- 
1  ily,  and  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  shall, 
‘  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  be 
‘  entitled  to  have  issued  to  him  or  her,  by 

*  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Lands,  a  war- 

*  rant,”  &c. 

In  his  speech  in  defence  of  this  amendment, 
the  Senator  told  us  frankly  that  he  was  opposed 
to  the  whole  scheme  of  giving  away  the  public 
lands.  He  could  not  have  laid  before  us  a 
stronger  proof  of  his  opposition.  His  amend¬ 


ment  is  impracticable  upon  its  face;  and  i±s 
only  effect  would  be  to  defeat  and  destroy  all 
chances  of  an  operative  homestead  bill. 

The  Senator  went  on  to  say,  that  he  regarded 
the  measure  of  granting  homes  to  the  actual 
settlers  upon  the  public  lands  in  precisely  the 
same  light  with  a  donation  of  money  from  the 
Federal  Treasury.  Having  assumed  this  po¬ 
sition,  he  endeavored  to  deduce  that  we  would 
commit  an  act  of  direct  injustice  in  limiting 
the  benefits  of  this  grant  to  those  who  reside 
upon  the  lands ;  or,  in  other  words,  in  requiring 
actual  settlement  and  occupancy  as  the  neces¬ 
sary  conditions  upon  which  the  grant  shall  be 
made. 

Thus,  he  reasoned  that  the  rights  of  many 
citizens  would  be  impaired,  because  many  citi¬ 
zens  might  not  choose  to  avail  themselves  of  a 
general  privilege,  common  to  all.  Sir,  if  the 
Senator  is  sincere  in  his  position ;  if  he  has 
really  stated  his  views  and  his  intentions  ;  if  he 
can  see  in  this  measure  nothing  higher  or  great¬ 
er  than  a  mere  donation  of  money  from  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Treasury;  if  he  considers  a  just  and  meri¬ 
torious  and  expedient  movement  as  a  simple 
expression  of  charity;  if,  in  short,  his  range  of 
vision  is  confined  to  this  near  and  narrow  pros¬ 
pect;  then,  sir,  I  must  think  that  he  does  not 
fully  understand  the  principles  involved  ;  then, 
sir,  1  must  believe  that  he  does  not  altogether 
comprehend  the  magnitude  of  the  question  ; 
then,  sir,  I  must  say  that  he  does  not  properly 
appreciate  either  the  causes  or  the  effects  of  our 
proposed  policy. 

I  cannot  reply  .better  to  the  Senator  from 
North  Carolina  than  by  quoting  from  a  speech 
delivered  in  this  body  on  the  18th  of  July, 
1854,  by  Hon.  Lewis  Cass,  then  a  Senator 
from  Michigan.  A  homestead  proposition  was 
before  the  Senate,  and  was  being  discussed, 
and  a  Senator  from  Louisiana,  [Mr.  Bexjamin,] 
still  a  member  of  this  body,  urged  very  nearly 
the  same  objection  which  has  now  been  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  Senator  from  North  Carolina. 
In  reply  to  it,  Mr.  Cass  spoke.  I  read  from  the 
Appendix  to  the  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty- 
third  Congress,  first  session,  page  1088  : 

“  The  Senator  from  Louisiana  seems  to  con- 
1  sider  this  project  of  granting  lands  to  actual 
c  settlers  as  very  unequal  and  unjust,  and,  I 
1  might  almost  say,  dishonest.  This  objection, 
‘  whatever  force  it  possesses,  is  just  as  applica- 
‘  ble  to  all  preceding  grants  to  actual  settlers 
1  as  to  the  proposed  one,  and,  of  course,  con- 
1  demns  the  repeated  action  of  Congress  upon 
1  this  subject  since  the  foundation  of  the  Gov- 
‘  ernment.  But  why  is  it  unjust?  I  confess 
1  I  listened  to  the  assertion  with  much  surprise. 
1  It  is  unjust  because  all  will  not  take  advan- 
1  tage  of  it.  This,  to  me,  is  a  strange  objec- 
1  tion.  If  a  system  of  policy  is  honest,  just, 
1  and  equal,  in  itself,  and  constitutional,  it  is 
1  worthy  to  be  adopted,  though  all  may  not  be 
1  willing  to  accept  the  advantages  it  offers. 
1  What  constitutes  the  justice  of  such  a  meas- 
1  ure  is  its  perfect  equality ;  and  that  equality 
‘  is  not  at  all  affected,  because  there  are  men 
‘  so  well  situated  in  life  that  they  do  not  need 


'the  benefits  it  holds  ont.  This  bill  offers 
‘  grants  of  land  to  every  settler.  It  looks  to  no 


4  distinction.  Has,  therefore,  a  wealthy  man 
4  in  one  of  the  old  States  a  right  to  say,  I  ara 
4  rich ;  I  do  not  intend  to  emigrate,  and  there- 
4  fore  your  law  is  an  uujust  one,  because  it 
4  makes  provisions  for  others  which  is  of  no 
4  use  to  me?  There  is  neither  reason  nor  con- 
4  stitutional  principle  in  such  an  objection.” 

Such  was  the  opinion  of  Lkwis  Cass;  and 
the  Senator  from  North  Carolina  will  perceive 
that  his  objection  is  not  only  ancient  and  stale, 
but  that  it  conies  to  us  with  the  weight  of  i 
triumphant  refutation  upon  its  head.  I  repu 
diale  entirely  the  untenable  idea  that  the  grant 
proposed  would  be  in  any  sense  a  charity. 
Mpn  in  power  are  very  fond  of  telling  us  that 
“  the  Govei'nment  is  not  intended  to  he  a  mere 
chantab/e  institution .”  Will  they  not  go  a 
little  further,  and  admit  that  it  is  not  intended 
to  be  a  monopolist  and  a  speculator  ? 

I  he  proposed  measure  embodies  a  manifest¬ 
ation  of  national  justice,  of  national  right,  and 
of  national  wisdom.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  good 
Government  so  to  dispose  of  the  public  lauds— 
the  property  of  the  whole  country — as  to  pro¬ 
mote  the  undoubted  interests  of  the  whole 
country. 

Here  we  have  the  solution  of  the  problem, 
and  here  we  may  finally  dismiss  the  mistaken 
supposition  of  charity.  In  my  opinion,  this 
Government  should  acknowledge,  formally  and 
officially,  the  distinct  natural  truth,  that  the 
wild,  uncultivated  lands  of  the  nation  belong, 
and  ol  right  ought  to  belong,  to  him  who  resides 
upon  them,  subdues  them,  and  cultivates  them, 
it  is  but  a  common  principle  in  equity  to  which 
we  are  giving  expression. 

The  adoption  of  a  wise  and  liberal  home¬ 
stead  bid  by  Congress  would  be  a  virtual  abo¬ 
lition  ol  all  landed  monopoly  within  the  United 
States,  whether  such  monopoly  be  practiced  by 
the  Government  itself,  or  by  any  of  its  citizens. 

1  need  scarcely  remind  the  Senate  that  the 
monopoly  of  land  by  the  few,  as  against  the 
many,  and  the  parcelling  out  of  public  domains 
m  immense  tracts  among  venal  courtiers,  have 
been,  all  over  the  world,  the  most  powerful 
auxiliaries  of  absolute  and  despotic  power. 
Thus  the  monarchies  and  aristocracies  of  all 
ages  have  been  enabled  to  hold  the  masses 
subject  to  their  wdl ;  thus  millions  of  the 
human  family  have  been  reduced  to  penury 
ami  degradation,  because  they  were  deprived 
oi  the  right  to  earn  their  subsistence  from  the 
common  earth,  which  was  intended  alike  for 
the  rich  and  for  the  poor.  Ireland,  with  her 
gr  at  mass  of  population,  having  scarcely  the 
m  ans  ot  life,  and  depending  for  daily  bread 
upon  soulless  and  haughty  aristocrats — Ireland, 
the  masses  of  whose  people  are  not  masters  of 
ground  enough  to  stand  upon— has  been  fre¬ 
quently  cited  as  an  instance  of  that  cruel  in¬ 
justice  which  must  always  result  from  great 
landed  monopolies.  Out  of  her  six  million  in¬ 
habitants,  not  more  than  one  in  every  six 
thousand  is  the  owner  of  even  an  inch  of  land, 
or  has  any  legal  right  to  earn  his  subsistence 


Here  I  point  to  a  most  indispn- 


j  from  the  soil, 
table  record. 

Our  present  land  system  has  a  direct  tend¬ 
ency  to  increase  the  spirit  of  monopoly  and 
speculation,  by  putting  up  large  tracts  of  land 
at  public  auction,  and  inviting  the  capitalist  to 
purchase  as  much  of  the  national  domain  as  lie 
may  desire.  This  practice,  if  tolerated,  may 
yet  become  a  fruitful  source  of  misery  and  op¬ 
pression,  even  in  our  own  free  and  enlightened 
country.  Even  now,  with  all  our  vast  expanse 
of  territory,  labor  is  outweighed  by  capital,  and 
the  rights  of  the  settler  are  but  slightly  regard¬ 
ed,  when  brought  into  comparison  with  the 
money  of  the  speculator.  Thus  far,  the  course 
of  the  Government  has  been  in  a  wrong  direc¬ 
tion  ;  and  the  sooner  it  is  changed,  the  better. 
For  my  part,  I  am  clearly  of  the  conviction  that 
it  should  adopt  a  policy  far  older  than  the  nation 
itself,  and  decree  that  44  the  land  shall  be  sold 
no  more  forever.”  I  would  wish  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  in  its  humanity  and  in  its  wisdom,  to 
ordain  that  44  the  people  go  and  inherit  the 
land,’  and  that  the  public  domain  should  be 
granted,  in  limited  quantities,  to  every  man 
who  is  anxious  to  earn  an  honorable  living  by 
the  cultivation  of  the  soil.  I  would  have  Con¬ 
gress,  in  its  homestead  bill,  address  itself  to  the 
'aboring  masses  of  the  country ;  to  those  who 
are  so  often  crushed  down  by  the  cruel  and  un¬ 
equal  conflict  between  capital  and  labor;  to 
the  poor  man,  who  earns  his  bread  from 
day  to  day  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow;  to  him 
who  feeds  upon  the  uncertain  crumbs  which, 
fall  from  the  rich  man’s  table  —  to  these, 

I  repeat,  I  would  have  this  proposition  ad¬ 
dressed.  I  would  have  the  Government  say  to 
these  persons,  44  There  is  yet  a  vast  unsettled 
domain  for  your  occupancy;  take  it,  live  on  it, 
inherit  it,  cultivate  it,  and  it  shall  be  yours  for¬ 
ever.”  44  And  when,”  as  was  said  by  a  distin- 
tinguished  member  of  the  House  of  Represent¬ 
atives,  a  few  years  ago,  44  the  poor  man  is  put 
4  in  possession  of  his  portion  of  this  vast  do- 
4  main,  and  is  secured  by  the  strong  arm  of  the 
4  Government  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  home  from 
4  which  not  he  nor  his  wife  nor  his  children  can 
4  be  driven,  then  is  he  raised  above  poverty,  not 
4  only  in  his  possession  of  the  land,  but  still 
4  more  by  the  virtues  which  he  cultivates  in  his 
4  heart  whilst  he  tills  the  soil.  Then,  too,  he 
no  longer  ministers  to  the  undue  accumula- 
4  tion  of  wealth  by  others,  as  he  did  when  ad- 
4  vantage  was  taken  of  his  homeless  condition, 

4  and  he  was  compelled  to  serve  for  what  he 
4  could  get.” 

Sir,  my  objections  were  against  the  Senate 
bill.  I  supposed,  from  the  course  which  has 
been  heretofore  taken,  that  it  would  come  up 
to-day,  and  had  intended  to  offer  some  ainenci- 
ments,  for  the  purpose  of  removing  its  objec¬ 
tionable  features.  In  the  first  place,  the  Sen¬ 
ate  bill  excludes  from  the  benefit  of  its  provis¬ 
ions  all  young,  unmarried  men  ;  it  is  expressly 
confined  to  heads  of  families.  I  do  not  under¬ 
stand  why  a  bill  of  this  description  should  be 
less  broad  in  its  application  than  the  present 
pre-emption  laws.  I  do  not  recognise  the  pro- 


priety  of  abolishiug  one  evil  for  the  mere  pur¬ 
pose  of  substituting  another.  I  certainly  regard 
it  as  very  unwise — and,  I  might  say,  unjust — 
to  exclude  all  unmarried  men  from  the  benefits 
of  such  a  bill.  As  the  Senate  bill  now  stands, 
they  are  entirely  cut  off  from  all  its  advantages. 
The  effect  of  this  provision,  taken  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  clause  limiting  the  operations  o 
the  bill  to  lands  subject  to  private  entry,  would 
be  to  shut  out  entirely  the  early  settlers — those 
who  go  first  into  the  unpeopled  West — and  re¬ 
serve  its  benefits  in  store  for  the  multitudes 
that  may  flock  in  after  the  toils  and  dangers 
and  inconveniences  of  pioneer  life  have  passed 
away.  Such  a  restriction  would  be  marked  by 
the  most  decided  impropriety  and  manifest 
unfairness ;  and  I  was  surprised  to  hear  the 
Senator  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Pugh,]  a  Western 
man,  advocate  the  Senate  bill  for  this  very 
reason. 

The  men  who  emigrate  in  youth  to  the  West¬ 
ern  country,  to  build  up  for  themselves  a  for¬ 
tune  and  a  reputation,  are  the  men  of  all  others 
to  whom  the  most  liberal  provisions  of  this  act 
should  apply.  We  need  their  services.  They 
are,  in  plain  fact,  the  vanguard  of  civilization 
upon  this  continent.  They  penetrate  the  wild 
solitudes,  far  beyond  the  safety  and  comforts  of 
society.  1  hey  traverse  and  explore  regions  in 
which,  for  the  time  being,  families  could  not 
reside  securely.  They  pitch  their  tents,  build 
their  houses,  break  up  and  improve  the  soil, 
and  open  the  broad  acres  to  occupancy  and 
culture.  They  furnish  a  more  sure  and  perfect 
protection  to  our  Western  frontier  than  can  be 
given  by  all  the  armed  soldiers  along  the  bor¬ 
der  line.  Coming  mostly  from  the  different 
States  of  the  Union,  they  bring  with  them  a 
deep  and  permanent  attachment  to  the  institu¬ 
tions  of  our  country ;  and,  as  settlements  ad¬ 
vance,  they  organize  municipal  governments, 
and  lay  the  foundation  of  future  States.  Such 
are  some  of  their  labors  and  dangers ;  such  are 
some  of  their  achievements.  Why,  then,  iu  the 
name  of  fairness  and  of  common  sense,  should 
this  class  of  active  and  energetic  young  men 
be  entirely  ignored  and  cast  aside  by  the  Sen¬ 
ate  bill? 

Laws,  in  order  to  be  just,  must  be  equal  in 
their  application  ;  and  I  regard  the  Senate  bill, 
in  the  provision  of  which  I  speak,  as  partial, 
unequal,  and  unjust. 

It  may  be  that  the  authors  of  the  bill  intended 
that  this  exclusion  of  young  men  without  fam¬ 
ilies  from  the  benefits  to  be  conferred  should 
of  itself  operate  as  an  active  encouragement  to 
matrimony  among  our  people.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  they  agree  with  me  in  believing 
early  marriages  to  be  productive  of  great  moral 
good  in  a  community ;  but  I  must  be  excused 
for  thinking  that  their  proscriptive  policy 
fails  of  its  object,  and  does  not  furnish  the 
proper  encouragement.  If  the  restrictive  clause 
were  to  apply  only  to  the  sons  and  daughters  of 
those  early  pioneers  who  emigrated  many  years 
ago  to  the  frontiers,  and  who  have  grown,  with 
growing  States,  into  prosperity  and  wealth  ;  if 
it  were  to  apply  only  to  those  children  who 


have  inherited  from  their  parents  both  the 
spirit  of  adventure  and  the  frame  to-  sustain 
hardships — if  these  were  the  only  persons  tc 
be  affected,  this  clause  would  not  be  so  entirely 
objectionable.  But  not  all  women  can  endure 
the  same  privations.  While  the  forest  is  yet 
to  be  felled,  and  the  humble  cabin  is  yet  to  be 
erected,  the  great  majority  of  the  women  of  out 
country  are  too  frail  to  join  in  the  struggles 
and  hardships  of  the  early  settler.  Sir,  this 
bill  should  look  beyond  an  immediate  benefit. 
If  properly  devised,  it  will  be  for  the  interest  of 
the  masses  ;  it  will  be  for  the  interest  of  society 
at  large,  and  of  that  high  morality  upon  which 
all  society  ought  to  rest.  It  will  advance  the 
cause  of  suffering  humanity  everywhere.  These 
are  the  ends  which  the  guardians  of  the  nation’s 
weal  should  seek,  in  discharging  the  high  trust 
reposed  in  them. 

Pass  through  our  great  cities.  Pee  the  boys 
of  all  ages  who  swarm  around  the  streets — 
many  of  them  willing  and  anxious  to  labor,  but 
finding  nothing  for  their  hands  to  do.  See 
them  exposed  to  temptations  of  every  kind  ; 
day  after  day  looking  upon  the  equipages  of 
wealth  with  the  hungry  and  cannibal  eye  of 
poverty.  Who  does  not  wish  that  these  boys 
might  be  rescued  from  the  constant  strife  be* 
tween  vice  and  virtue,  in  which  vice  so  often 
obtains  the  mastery  ?  Let  them  be  told  that 
there  is  labor  for  them.  Let  them  be  told  that 
they  can  go  to  the  fertile  lands  of  the  West, 
and  conquer  a  possession  from  the  wilderness 
by  the  force  of  their  own  exertions. 

We  shall  have  les3  need  for  the  erection  of 
prisons  ;  we  shall  have  less  occasion  for  the 
maintenance  of  houses  of  refuge.  And  when 
the  ambition  of  the  settler  has  been  attained, 
when  his  task  has  been  accomplished,  when  the 
cabin  has  been  built,  when  the  rich  earth  has 
begun  to  yield  her  abundant  fruits,  then  the 
young  settler  will  require  no  stimulating  legis¬ 
lation  to  drive  him  into  matrimony.  He  will 
feel  for  himself  the  necessity  of  a  partner  and  a 
helpmeet  in  his  free  home,  won  by  his  own  toil. 
Nature  legislates  iu  these  cases  better  than 
man.  Rely  upon  it,  sir,  that  we  shall  act  wisely 
in  extending  the  benefits  of  the  bill  to  all  un¬ 
married  men. 

Now,  sir,  I  come  to  another  objection  against 
the  Senate  bill.  It  will  operate  unjustly  as  to 
our  foreign  population.  In  this  particular,  it 
falls  far  short  of  the  liberality  of  the  pre-emp¬ 
tion  laws  themselves.  On  this  account,  too,  I 
was  surprised  that  the  Senator  from  Ohio 
should  announce  that  he  favored  the  Senate 
bill. 

Mr.  PUGH.  The  Senator  is  mistaken.  That 
is  a  point  which  I  have  suggested  to  the  Sena¬ 
tor  from  Tennessee;  that  the  Senate  bill  es¬ 
caped  my  attention.  I  wish  to  amend  it  in 
that ;  but  if  it  will  not  interrupt  the  Senator,  I 
will  make  a  suggestion  on  the  point  he  has  just 
left.  The  object  of  confining  the  Senate  bill 
to  heads  of  families  is  to  prevent  fraud,  with 
which  the  Senator  must  certainly  be  familiar, 
under  the  operations  of  the  pre-emption  act. 
The  Senate  bill  does  not  affect  the  operation 


of  the  pre-emption  act,  or  graduation  act,  or 
the  special  law  for  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
which  permit  settlement  uuder  the  pre-emption 
law  upon  unsurveyed  lands  *,  so  that  these 
young  men  may  go  forward  aud  make  their 
claims  under  the  pre-emption  law,  and  they  are 
not  even  called  upon  to  pay  for  it  until  proc¬ 
lamation  and  public  sale  is  made  at  the  inter¬ 
val  of  five  or  six  years.  Therefore,  the  effect 
of  the  Senate  bill  is  simply  to  make,  not  an  ex¬ 
clusion,  but  a  distinction  between  the  head  of 
a  family  and  an  unmarried  man,  and  precisely 
that  distinction  exists  in  every  donation  law  we 
have  ever  adopted — in  the  Oregon  act,  the  New 
Mexico  act,  aud  the  Florida  act.  The  Senate 
committee  have  not  departed  from  the  princi¬ 
ples  heretofore  adopted. 

Mr.  WILKINSON.  I  would  say  to  the  Sen¬ 
ator,  that  the  provision  for  which  I  contend  is 
precisely  the  same  as  that  adopted  by  the  pol¬ 
icy  of  the  pre  emption  law.  That  law  extends 
its  privileges  to  all  citizens,  present  or  pros¬ 
pective,  married  or  unmarried,  who  may  be 
over  twenty-one  years  of  age.  I  do  not  wish 
this  measure  to  fall  short  of  the  liberality  of 
that  law. 

Mr.  PUGH.  I  know  that ;  but  the  pre-emp¬ 
tion  law  is  the  law  of  payment,  and  that  is  the 
reason  for  it» 

Mr.  WILKINSON.  I  do  not  know  that  I 
exactly  understand  the  meaning  of  the  Sena¬ 
tor.  If  he  means  only  that  this  restriction 
would  have  the  effect  of  preventing  frauds,  I 
can  readily  answer  him.  So  far  as  my  experi¬ 
ence  has  gone,  young  and  unmarried  men  have 
been  found  no  more  efficient  in  robbing  the 
Government  of  its  lands  by  fraud  than  some 
older  men  and  heads  of  families.  My  impres¬ 
sion  is,  that  their  honesty  is  quite  equal  to  the 
average  honesty  of  the  old  men.  Perhaps  they 
have  not  lived  long  enough  to  become  so  hard¬ 
ened  in  iniquity  as  to  enable  them  to  take  a  pre¬ 
emption  oath  without  foundation  for  it.  Their 
elders  sometimes  set  the  example. 

Mr.  PUGH.  This  is’  the  idea:  the  head  of 
a  family,  who  has  or  may  have  his  family  with 
him,  will  very  often — I  will  not  say  in  every 
case — make  a  bona  fide  settlement,  and  go  upon 
the  land ;  but  in  the  case  of  young  men,  who 
have  no  fixed  residence,  a  majority  of  their 
settlements  to-day,  under  the  pre-emption  law, 
are  colorable.  It  is  an  ascertained  fact  that  a 
majority  of  them  are  colorable.  They  merely 
take  the  lands  to  sell  them  again,  and  that  is 
the  way  they  get  into  the  hands  of  speculators. 
They  do  not  get  it  at  public  sale,  but  get  it  by 
colorable  pre  eruptions. 

Mr.  WILKINSON.  The  Senator  strength¬ 
ens  my  position.  My  argument  is,  that  our 
present  practice  encourages  a  violation  of  the 
law.  His  objection,  I  repeat,  would  apply 
equally  to  any  married  men  who  might  choose 
to  avail  themselves  of  a  looseness  in  the  law. 

Mr.  PUGH.  No  doubt,  in  some  cases. 

Mr.  VV ILKINSON.  But  the  Senator  does 
not  yet  seem  to  appreciate  the  full  force  of  the 
idea.  In  advance  of  settlements,  men  cannot 
take  their  families  into  the  wilderness.  They 


1  could  not  endure  the  necessary  hardships.  By 
1  offering  inducements  to  young  men,  we  shall 
secure  the  opening  up  of  the  wilderness,  the 
building  of  cabins,  and  the  planting  of  first 
crops.  As  settlements  increase,  the  facilities 
for  obtaining  wives  will  increase  with  thr-m. 

But  to  resume,  I  have  said  that  I  object  to 
the  Senate  bill,  because  it  will  operate  unjustly 
in  regard  to  our  foreign  population. 

The  Senator  from  Tennessee,  [Mr.  Ntchot.- 
sox,]  in  his  recent  speech  in  support  of  that 
bill,  used  the  following  language  : 

“  The  bill  matured  by  the  Senate  commit- 
‘  tee,  aud  now  before  the  Senate,  is  relieved  of 
‘  these  objectional  provisions,  and  to  that  I 
1  shall  confine  my  remarks. 

11  It  provides  that  any  person  who  is  the  head 
‘  of  a  family,  and  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
1  or  who  shall  have  filed  his  intention  to  become 
*  a  citizen  in  pursuance  of  our  naturalization 
‘  laws,  shall  have  the  right  to  enter  one  quarter 
‘  section  of  the  unappropriated  public  domain  ; 

‘  but,  in  exercising  this  right,  such  person  is  to 
‘  be  restricted  to  those  lands  that  have  been 
1  surveyed,  proclaimed,  and  offered  for  sale,  and 
1  are  consequently  subject  to  private  entry  un- 
1  der  existing  laws.” 

With  all  respect  for  the  Senator,  I  must  beg 
to  correct  the  error  in  this  statement  of  fact. 
The  bill  does  not  declare  that  any  person  “  who 
shall  have  filed  his  intention  to  become  a  citi¬ 
zen,  in  pursuance  of  our  naturalization  laws,” 
shall  have  the  right  to  enter  lands  under  its 
provisions.  And  here  I  rest  my  complaint; 
here  I  find  another  act  of  palpable  injustice. 
The  first  section  of  the  Senate  bill  is  as  follows  : 

“  That  any  person  who  is  the  head  of  a 
‘  family,  aud  a  citizen  of  the  United  State3, 

1  shall,  from  and  after  the  passage  of  this  act, 

‘  be  entitled  to  enter  one  quarter  section  of  va- 
1  cant  and  unappropriated  public  lands,  or  a 
‘  quantity  equal  thereto,  to  be  located  in  a  body, 

1  in  conformity  with  the  legal  subdivisions  of 
1  the  public  lands,  and  after  the  same  shall  have 
‘  been  surveyed.” 

This  section  distinctly  and  expressly  limits 
the  application  of  the  bill  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  It  would  entirely  exclude  all 
those  persons  who  may  emigrate  to  this  country 
from  a  foreign  land  after  the  passage  of  the  bill, 
until  they  shall  have  resided  in  the  U nited  States 
for  five  years,  and  until  they  shall  have  become 
citizens  thereof. 

Mr.  WIGFALL.  I  ask  the  Senator,  in  a 
word,  does  he  propose  to  give  away  the  public 
lands  to  persons  who  are  not  citizens  of  the 
United  States  ? 

Mr.  WILKINSON.  I  propose  to  make  the 
bill  precisely  as  broad  as  the  pre-emption  act 
now  is  ;  to  extend  its  benefits  to  all  foreigners 
who  may  declare  their  intentions  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  I  wish  to  do 
nothing  more  ;  I  believe  .that  it  would  be  unjust 
to  do  anything  less.  Twenty  years  ago,  Con¬ 
gress,  in  the  passage  of  the  pre  emption  act, 
adopted  the  measure  of  placing  foreigners  who 
had  declared  their  intentions  to  become  citizens 
of  the  United  States  on  an  equality  (so  far  as 


the  land  laws  were  concerned)  with  the  native- 
born  citizen.  This  system  was  dictated,  not 
only  by  an  exalted  sense  of  national  liberality, 
bnt  also  by  a  wise  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  invite,  foster,  and  encourage,  emi¬ 
gration  from  Eu.ope.  I  argue,  that  twenty 
years  of  beneficial  experience  should  be  amply 
sufficient  to  confirm  in  our  minds  the  evident 
advantages  of  the  established  policy.  During 
that  time,  we  have  been  furnished  with  the  most 
abundant  proofs  of  the  loyalty  of  this  class  of 
our  people.  Why  should  we  now  begin  to  make 
any  oppressive  restrictions  in  regard  to  them? 
Who  can  now  pretend  to  dread  their  influence  ? 
Who  cau  pretend,  in  the  face  of  a  long  and  con¬ 
vincing  experience,  to  fear  the  effects  of  their 
emigrating  hither?  What  new  reason  has 
been  discovered,  that  should  check  the  influx 
of  this  foreign  population?  Let  us  question 
the  record  ;  let  us  summon  history  to  produce 
her  testimony  in  regard  to  our  foreign  popula¬ 
tion.  There  has  been  no  battle-field  from  Maine 
to  Mexico  that  is  not  red  with  the  blood  of 
foreigners  shed  in  defence  of  American  liberty  1 
Wherever  our  flag  has  been  borne  victoriously 
in  battle,  there  the  heart  of  the  foreigner  has 
throbbed  beneath  its  folds !  There  he  has  stood 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the  native-born,  hoping 
the  same  hopes,  bearing  the  same  dangers, 
struggling  for  the  same  ends,  and  exulting  in 
the  same  triumphs.  Whenever  we  have  con¬ 
quered  new  territory  from  an  enemy,  his  bones 
lie  thickly  scattered  beneath  it. 

The  Senator  from  Mississippi,  [Mr.  Davis,] 
who  has  honorably  and  ably  filled  the  position 
ot  Secretary  of  War,  can  tell,  from  the  annals 
of  his  Department,  how  true  that  class  of  our 
population  has  been  in  time  of  war.  The  whole 
flourishing  West — indeed,  the  whole  country — 
cau  attest  how  useful  they  have  been  in  time 
of  peace.  The  foreign  population  !  Stretching 
outward  and  wesward  from  our  sea-port  towns, 
bearing  the  will  to  toil  and  the  energy  to  secure 
success,  that  population  has  marched  steadily 
on  with  the  incessant  and  irresistible  tread  of  a 
great  destiny.  It  has  gone  into  the  silence  of 
the  primeval  forests,  and  the  axe  of  the  wood¬ 
man  has  made  music  in  the  solitude  ;  and  happy 
homes  have  smiled  throughout  the  wilderness. 
It  has  plunged  into  the  depths  of  the  marshes; 
and  millions  of  acres  have  been  reclaimed  from 
sterility  and  won  to  cultivation.  Everywhere 
i-t  has  assisted  in  creating  villages,  towns,  and 
cities,  in  its  luminous  path. 

V*  herever  American  art  has  triumphed,  or 
American  civilization  has  been  clearly  estab¬ 
lished,  there  you  will  find  the  history  of  our 
foreign  population,  not  written  in  perishable  or 
lying  records,  but  stamped — indeliblystamped — 
in  characters  of  deed  and  action,  upon  the 
progress  and  civilization  of  a  mighty  national 
existence.  These  foreigners  who  have  become 
citizens — these  men  who  have  accomplished  so 
much — have  only  paved  the  way  for  those  who 
are  to  come  alter  them.  Their  friends  and  rela¬ 
tives  in  other  lands,  hearing  of  their  success, 
are  constantly  pouring  in  upon  our  shores. 
It  has  been  our  policy  hitherto  to  assist  in  every 


way  this  influx  of  emigration,  and  the  conse¬ 
quences  are  before  us,  in  our  present  prosperity 
and  greatness.  Shall  we  prove  untrue  to  out 
past  ?  Shall  we  give  the  lie  to  experience  and 
to  philosophy  ?  In  one  word,  shall  we  retro¬ 
grade  ?  I  sincerely  hope  that  such  may  not  be 
our  decision.  I  trust  faithfully  that  we  may 
continue  to  advance  ;  that  we  may  understand 
the  past  to  be  our  best  guide  for  the  future : 
and  that  we  may  still  encourage  a  constani 
emigration  from  the  Old  World  to  the  New. 
But  in  this  hope  we  are  met  and  resisted  by 
the  present  Administration.  The  Secretary  ol 
the  Interior,  in  his  last  annual  report,  in  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  homestead  measures,  takes  occasion 
to  say : 

“  Should,  however,  the  new  policy  of  a  gr& 
1  tuitous  distribution  of  the  public  lands  be 
‘  adopted,  it  is  evident,  that  while  an  undtu 
1  stimulus  would  be  given  to  emigration ,  land 
*  bounty  can  no  longer  be  held  out  as  an  in* 
‘  ducement  to  future  military  service.” 

The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  here  expresses 
his  fears  that  an  undue  stimulus  may  be  given 
to  foreign  emigration.  Now  that  the  nation 
has  grown  strong  and  great,  this  high  func¬ 
tionary  would  coldly  turn  away  from  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  those  who  in  our  infancy  contributed 
from  their  blood  and  treasure  to  the  establish¬ 
ment  and  maintenance  of  a  free  Government 
on  this  continent.  The  Republic  will  deserve 
to  be  called  “  ungrateful,”  in  the  worst  sense  of 
that  despised  word,  when  it  can  be  brought  to 
adopt  such  a  suggestion. 

The  Secretary  calls  the  homestead  proposi¬ 
tion  “  a  new  policy .”  How  is  it  new  ?  Has  it 
not  often  been  considered  ?  Has  it  not  known 
its  earnest  and  able  advocates  under  this  Gov¬ 
ernment?  And  have  not  other  Governments 
frequently  availed  themselves  of  the  advan¬ 
tages  resulting  from  free  grants  of  land  to 
actual  settlers  ?  The  “  new  policy,”  so  recently 
discovered  by  the  honorable  Secretary,  has 
been  an  ancient  institution  in  many  nations  of 
the  world.  I  will  read  an  extract  from  a  de¬ 
cree  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  dated  June, 
1823 : 

“  The  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
1  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  united  in  Con- 
‘  gress,  considering — 

11 1.  That  a  population,  numerous  and  pro- 
‘  portionate  to  the  territory  of  a  State,  is  the 
1  basis  of  its  property  and  true  greatness ; 

“  2.  That  the  fertility  of  the  soil,  the  salu- 
‘  brity  of  the  climate,  the  extensive  unappropri- 
1  ated  lands,  and  the  free  institutions  of  the 
1  Republic,  permit  and  require  a  numerous  em- 
‘  igration  of  useful  and  laboring  strangers,  who, 

1  by  improving  their  own  fortunes,  may  aug- 
1  ment  the  revenues  of  the  nation — have  de- 
‘  creed : 

u  That  foreigners  emigrating  to  Colombia 
1  shall  receive  gratuitous  donations  of  land,  in 
‘  parcels  of  two  hundred  fanegas  (about  four 
‘  hundred  acres)  to  each  family.” 

I  find  another  and  a  more  remarkable  in¬ 
stance,  occurring  in  aheathen  country,  and  under 
a  despotic  rule.  I  will  quote  from  a  proclama- 


7 


tion  of  the  King  of  Persia,  made  through  his 
ambassador,  and  dated  London,  July  8,  1823: 

44  Mirza  Mahomed  Saul,  Ambassador  to  Eng- 
4  land,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Ab- 
4  bas  Mirza,  King  of  Persia,  gratuitous  grants  of 
4  land,  good  for  the  production  of  wheat,  barley, 
4  rice,  cotton,  and  fruits,  free  from  taxes  and 
4  contributions  of  any  kind,  and  with  the  free 
4  enjoyment  of  their  religion ;  the  King's  object 
4  being  to  improve  his  country  .” 

Thus  it  would  seem  that  our  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  might  have  taken  lessons  in  statesman¬ 
ship  from  the  young  Republic  of  Colombia,  and 
that  he  would  hardly  have  been  equal  to  the 
duties  of  a  Cabinet  officer,  even  under  a  heathen 
King  of  Persia.  I  can  only  regret  that  the 
honorable  Secretary,  for  the  sake  of  his  posi¬ 
tion,  did  not  look  more  closely  into  the  history 
of  his  own  and  other  countries  before  venturing 
upon  the  assertion  that  this  was  a  44  new  pol 
icy. 

Is  it  in  consequence  of  Executive  opposition 
that  the  authors  of  the  Senate  bill  have  been 
induced  to  give  it  such  a  form,  that  it  would 
operate  unequally  as  to  foreigners,  and  thus  re¬ 
tard,  rather  than  encourage,  emigration  ?  I 
hope  that,  in  this  regard,  the  provisions  of  the 
House  bill  may  be  adopted — that  all  those  who 
a  e  now  residents,  and  those  who  may  hereafter 
become  such,  who  are  willing  to  abjure  alle¬ 
giance  to  their  former  princes,  and  declare  their 
intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  may  be  permitted  to  enjoy  all  the  rights 
under  our  proposed  grant  which  are  to  be  ex¬ 
tended  to  the  native-born  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

But,  sir,  I  have  another  and  third  objection 
to  the  Senate  bill,  which,  to  me,  is  of  more  im¬ 
mediate  importance  than  any  to  which  I  have 
yet  alluded  ;  and  that  is,  that  it  applies  only  to 
lands  subject  to  private  entry.  Under  the  pres¬ 
ent  land  laws,  no  lands  are  subject  to  private 
entry  until  after  they  shall  have  been  surveyed, 
brought  into  market,  advertised,  and  offered  for 
sale  at  public  auction.  Then  the  capitalist  is 
allowed  to  come  iu  and  purchase  whatever  por¬ 
tions  may  suit  his  convenience.  The  experi¬ 
ence  of  the  West  goes  to  show  that  settlements 
are  in  advance  of  the  survevs  of  the  public 
lands. 

The  first  settlements  in  a  new  State  or  Ter¬ 
ritory  have  usually  been  made  some  years  before 
the  land  has  been  offered  for  sale  at  public  auc¬ 
tion  ;  and  when  such  sale  takes  place,  the 
settlers  are  either  obliged  to  suffer  their  homes 
to  bo  put  up  at  auction,  and  sold  by  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  or  to  pre-empt,  enter,  and  pay  for  the 
same  at  the  Government  price,  before  tho  day 
of  such  sale.  The  hardship  and  oppression  of 
this  stern  rule  were  vividly  portrayed  by  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi,  (Mr.  Brown,]  when 
ho  was  a  member  of  tho  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives.  He  then  said  : 

“Look,  sir,  at  this  scene;  gaze  on  that  sun- 
4  burnt  patriot,  for  he  is  worthy  of  youradmira- 
4  tion.  Now  go  with  me  one  step  further,  and 
4  behold  the  destruction  of  all  these  fairy  vis- 
4  ions ;  blighting  seasons,  low  prices,  disease,  a 


4  bad  trade,  or  some  unforeseen  disaster  has 
4  overtaken  him.  His  year  of  honest  industry 
4  is  gone — the  time  has  come  when  Government 
4  demands  her  pay  for  this  poor  man’s  home. 
4  He  is  without  money.  Government,  with  a 
4  hard  heart  and  inexorable  will,  turns  coldly 
4  away,  and  the  next  week  or  the  next  month 
4  she  sells  her  land,  and  this  man's  labor,  his 
4  humble  house  and  little  fields,  are  gone.  The 
4  speculator  comes,  and  with  an  irou  will  turns 
4  him  and  his  family  out  of  doors;  and  all  this 
4  is  the  act  of  his  own  Government — of  a  Gov- 
4  eminent  which  ha3  untold  millions  of  acres  of 
4  land.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  ask  you,  cau 
4  this  man  love  a  Government  that  treats  him 
4  thus?  Never,  sir,  never.  To  do  so,  he  should 
4  be  more  than  a  man,  and  scarcely  less  than 
4  God.  Treatment  like  this  would  have  put  out 
4  the  fire  of  patriotism  in  Washington' s  breast, 
4  and  almost  justified  the  treachery  of  Ar- 
4  nold.” — Speeches  and  Writings  of  lion.  A.  G. 
4  Brown ,  p.  1%. 

As  the  Senate  bill  now  stands,  the  hardy  and 
energetic  pioneers,  be  they  native  or  foreign 
born,  are  entirely  cut  off  from  all  advantages ; 
because  these  men,  going  in  advance  of  your 
surveys, are  obliged  under  all  such  discouraging 
circumstances  to  pay  for  their  little  homes  at 
once,  or  have  them  sold  by  the  Government ; 
while  the  weak,  indolent,  and  shiftless,  who  fol¬ 
low  in  the  train  of  these  fearless  adventurers, 
are  rewarded  with  a  free  home. 

In  my  own  State,  where  there  are  millions  of 
acres  of  unoccupied  public  lauds,  subject  to 
pre-emption,  there  are  no  lands  of  any  value 
which  are  subject  to  private  entry.  The  Sen¬ 
ate  bill,  therefore,  would  be  entirely  inoperative 
there ;  and  when  the  public  sales  should  take 
place,  ail  the  most  valuable  lands  would  be 
bought  up  by  greedy  speculators  ;  and  the. real 
objects  contemplated  by  the  friends  of  this 
measure  would  be  defeated  under  the  Senate 
bill. 

I  am  free  to  say,  that  if  this  provision  is  to 
be  retained,  the  whole  bill,  so  far  as  any  practi¬ 
cable  benefits  expected  to  arise  from  it  are  con¬ 
cerned,  might  as  well  be  rejected  at  once. 
Nothing  valuable  will  be  left,  save  and  except 
the  mere  recognition  of  the  principle  itself. 
We  would  estaolish  a  glittering  show,  contain¬ 
ing  nothiug  of  real  merit. 

Mr.  President,  the  friends  of  the  homestead 
measure  want  a  practical  bill  ;  they  want  an 
operative  bill ;  they  want,  in  plain  words,  an 
honest  bill,  which  will  accomplish,  in  fact,  the 
things  which  it  assumes  to  maintain  iu  theory. 

I  have,  Mr.  President,  oue  last  objection  to 
the  Senate  bill,  it  contains  a  clause  limiting 
the  application  of  the  bill  to  alternate  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  public  lands.  1  regard  this  provis¬ 
ion  as  particularly  objectionable,  because  it 
seems  to  me  to  be  dictated  by  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  to  make  the  energy 
and  enterprise  of  the  people  a  subject  of  specu¬ 
lation.  This  objection  also  applies  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Indiana.  Be¬ 
sides  this,  it  would  place  the  settlers  who  mav 
select  their  new  homes  under  the  provisions  of 


the  act,  at  a  distance  from  each  other,  and, 
consequently,  add  much  to  the  embarrassments 
of  new  settlements  on  the  frontier.  I  do  not 
approve  of  any  system  of  Government  specu¬ 
lation  in  the  public  land — most  of  all  do  I  dis¬ 
like  the  idea  of  so  fashioning  this  bill,  of  so 
limiting  and  restricting  the  application  of  this 
so  called  liberal  measure,  that  the  Government 
may  be  able  to  gorge  its  Treasury  from  the 
sale  of  lands,  the  market  value  of  which  has 
been  greatly  enhanced  by  reason  of  the  settle¬ 
ments  around  them. 

When  we  reflect  that  the  first  settlers  of  a 
country  are  those  who  are  obliged  to  build  the 
school-houses  and  churches ;  to  cut  out  and  es¬ 
tablish  roads,  and  construct  bridges — in  short, 
to  start  and  create  everything  that  is  essential 
and  necessary  to  the  happiness  of  a  civilized 
people — we  can  readily  understand  how  much 
more  arduous  these  labors  become  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  remoteness  of  neighbors.  Muni¬ 
cipal  and  social  exigencies  demand  that  settle¬ 
ments  should  be  condensed  as  much  as  possi¬ 
ble. 

If  the  public  lands  are  to  be  thrown  open  at 
all,  let  the  whole  mass  of  them  be  thrown  open 
to  the  operations  of  the  homestead  measure,  as 
the  House  bill  provides. 

Mr.  President,  the  bill  which  has  passed  the 
House,  and  which  has  been  reported  here  in 
the  Senate,  comes  to  us  free  from  all  these  ob¬ 
jections.  It  seeks  to  carry  out  the  true  objects 
and  purposes  of  this  wise  policy.  It  places 
before  the  people  this  measure,  full  and  broad 
in  its  application,  making  no  unjust  distinc¬ 
tions  as  to  persons ;  no  unwise  and  illiberal 
limitations  as  to  the  kind  of  lands  to  be  affect¬ 
ed  by  its  provisions.  I  would  much  prefer  its 
adoption  ;  but  if  we  cannot  accomplish  this  re¬ 
sult  in  fact,  if  the  Senate  is  determined  to  re¬ 
ject  the  House  bill,  I  shall  endeavor  to  ap¬ 
proach  the  same  end  through  amendments 
which  I  sball  propose.  If  they  should  be  re¬ 
jected,  either  in  part  or  in  the  whole,  I  may 
feel  inclined  to  support  the  Senate  bill  as  it  is  ; 
and,  though  far  from  being  content  with  its 
provisions,  may  be  disposed  to  vote  for  the 
simple  recognition  of  a  principle. 

Mr-  President,  the  Senator  from  Tennessee 
[Mr.  Johnson]  has  spoken  of  this  question  as 
being  above  and  beyond  all  party  issues.  I 
agree  with  him  in  this.  I  believe  the  measure 
to  be  higher,  far  higher,  than  party  or  partisan 
claims  !  It  appeals  directly  to  the  great  heart 
of  the  nation.  It  is  the  measure  of  the  work¬ 
ing,  suffering  class  of  our  people  ;  those  who 
are  struggling  on  from  day  to  day,  from  week 
t)  week,  and  from  year  to  year,  vindicating 
the  dignity  of  labor  against  the  oppressions  and 
aggressions  of  capital.  It  will  be  welcomed  by 
those  who  are  ever-patient,  ever-enduring,  ever- 
vigorous,  and  ever-hopeful.  Why,  then,  should 
any  gentleman  attempt  to  narrow  it  down  to 
some  imaginary  rule  of  party  platforms  ?  Why 
should  any  vile  spirit  of  sectionalism  enter  into 
it,  to  mar  its  beauty,  or  destroy  its  usefulness? 
Caunot  the  wisdom,  the  humanity,  and  lofty 
statesmanship  of  all  parties  be  combined  in  sup- 


8 

port  of  a  general  principle,  which  history,  expe¬ 
rience,  and  common  sense,  proclaim  to  be  just 
and  proper? 

The  views  of  politicians  should  be  modelled 
to  suit  the  interests  of  the  people,  not  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  the  people  to  suit  the  views  and  wishes 
of  fickle  and  time-serving  partisans.  Too  much 
of  the  time  of  the  National  Legislature  has,  for 
the  last  few  years,  been  expended  in  fighting 
mimic  battles  over  vague  abstractions,  while 
too  little  has  been  employed  in  defence  of  ac¬ 
knowledged  rights.  For  my  part,  I  sustain  a 
homestead  bill,  because  I  honestly  and  truly 
believe  it  to  be  just  and  wise,  and  calculated 
to  promote  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of 
the  great  mass  of  our  people.  The  study  of 
the  true  interests  of  the  people  should  be  our 
only  object.  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty,  as  a  Sen¬ 
ator  and  legislator,  to  work  in  the  cause  of  a 
great  natioual  necessity ;  and  I  shall  be  most 
happy  to  see  all  parties  united  in  the  enterprise. 

But  if  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Chamber  shall  choose  to  regard  this  measure 
as  sectional  and  undemocratic  ;  if  they  shall 
determine  that  they  cannot  reconcile  it  with 
their  party  faith ;  if  they,  or  any  considerable 
number  of  them,  shall  oppose  it  upon  sectional 
or  party  grounds — then  they,  and  they  alone, 
will  have  made  the  issue ;  and  then  1  appre¬ 
hend  that  those  with  whom  I  have  the  honor  to 
act  politically  will  be  ready  to  meet  it. 

Then  it  will  go  upon  the  record — it  will  be 
spread  before  the  country — that  the  Democratic 
party  resisted  and  defeated  the  liberal  policy  of 
a  homestead  bill  1  While  it  will  also,  I  trust,  be 
fixed  upon  the  record  of  Congress,  that  the  Re¬ 
publican  party  was  neither  ashamed  nor  afraid 
of  the  measure  of  granting  free  homes  to  the 
actual  settlers  upon  the  public  lands.  I  repeat, 
1  do  not  desire  to  see  this  made  a  party  ques¬ 
tion  ;  and  it  rests  entirely  with  Democratic 
Senators  to  produce  this  result,  or  not  to  pro¬ 
duce  it. 

May  we  not  hope  that  this  policy  may  be  per¬ 
fected  and  adopted,  in  a  spirit  of  harmony  and 
good  will  ?  May  we  not  cherish  the  fond  ex¬ 
pectation,  that  no  disturbing  sectional  ideas 
sball  be  allowed  to  corrupt  the  infancy  of  so 
pure  a  measure  ?  It  should  be  cradled  in  the 
lap  of  peace ;  it  should  receive  its  nurture  and 
support  trom  the  kindly  feelings  of  all  sections 
of  the  country,  because  it  is  for  the  common 
benefit  of  the  whole  country. 

Standing  upon  his  own  soil,  the  settler  rises 
to  the  full  dignity  of  manhood.  He  is  inde¬ 
pendent  from  the  hour  in  which  he  becomes 
the  owner  of  a  free  farm  —  independent  of 
everything,  except  his  country  and  his  God. 
Open  up  your  domain  to  him,  give  him  a  home 
out  of  the  vast  abundance  of  your  lands,  and 
you  will  have  found  the  surest  method  for  the 
perpetuation  of  your  Government.  You  will 
have  sanctified  his  patriotism.  He  can  never 
prove  untrue  to  the  Constitution  and  to  the 
laws,  while  he,  his  wife,  and  his  children,  are 
enjoying  the  blessings  of  a  free  home,  under 
the  protection  of  that  Constitution  and  those 
laws. 


